The Evolution Deceit
A documentary called "Super Fly" was broadcast on the Discovery Channel on April 11, 2003. The program dealt with the role played by fruit flies of the species Drosophilia melanogaster in the development of genetic science. A number of important scientific advances in various genetic studies in which the fruit fly was used were described, beginning with the research by a scientist called Thomas H. Morgan in the early 1900s and continuing up to the present day. However, the Discovery Channel once again revealed in this program its habit of using every living thing it describes as a vehicle for evolutionist propaganda. What is more, it did so by offering fictitious accounts and concealing the facts.
The documentary mainly concen trated on the studies carried out by Thomas H. Morgan, and the channel reported the aim behind these in the following terms: "Darwin had developed his theory 50 years before. Morgan wanted to test this in his laboratory: He would unravel how evolution had taken place."
The Discovery Channel sought to give the impression with these statements that evolution was a scientific fact and had been observed in a laboratory environment. At the same time, it also sent out the message that the research on fruit flies had proven so-called evolution.
The fact is, however, that far from confirming the theory of evolution the research carried out on fruit flies has actually produced results totally invalidating it:
1. It has been realized that the mutations upon which the theory of evolution principally rests possess no property which causes living species to evolve by improving them. When chance mutations do have an effect they lead to deformity or death in living things rather than improvement. (Evolutionists maintain that some mutations are beneficial. Yet the examples they cite are most deceptive. For the real effects of mutations see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html.)
2. Another important obstacle is the fact that in order for mutations to be passed on to subsequent generations they have to take place in the sex cells. Even if we assume that a beneficial mutation did take place, despite the existence of so many barriers and unsuccessful experimental work, the mutation will still be unable to be handed on if it takes place outside the sex cells, for which reason it will be "ineffective."
3. Moreover, faulty copying is checked and repaired during the cell replication process. This does away with the majority of mutations.
4. The theory of evolution claims that there is an evolutionary progression from the simple to the complex. Yet it has been seen that no mutation adds any information to an organism and that mutations are inevitably harmful.
The unsuccessful results of these experiments have been admitted by a number of evolutionists at various times. Some of these admissions are as follows:
Professor R. Goldschmidt (A zoologist from California University):
It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations. In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature. (1)
Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila)… geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists" monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type. (2)
Gordon Taylor (An evolutionist geneticist):
It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. (3)
On the other hand, leaving aside the genetic properties of the fly the perfection in its design alone shows that life cannot be the product of chance. To maintain that a design which allows the fly to beat its wings 200 times a second, to land on ceilings and glass and to enjoy superior maneuverability to even the most advanced airplane could have come about by chance is even more irrational than to suggest that a group of chimpanzees placed into a workshop could come up with a high-tech warplane by using the materials there. The Discovery Channel must accept that it is impossible for blind chance to produce complex designs and that these can only be accounted for by intelligent design, in other words creation.
1- Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As viewed by One Geneticist", American Scientist, vol.40 (January 1952), p. 94.
2- Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London, River Publishing, 1984, p. 70.
3- Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, s. 48.